A Biomechanical Analysis of 2 Constructs for Metacarpal Spiral Fracture Fixation in a Cadaver Model: 2 Large Screws Versus 3 Small Screws.

PURPOSE: Surgeons confronted with a long spiral metacarpal fracture may choose to fix it solely with lagged screws. A biomechanical analysis of a metacarpal spiral fracture model was performed to determine whether 3 1.5-mm screws or 2 2.0-mm screws provided more stability during bending and torsional loading.

METHODS

Second and third metacarpals were harvested from 12 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric hands and spiral fractures were created. One specimen from each matched pair was fixed with 2 2.0-mm lagged screws whereas the other was fixed with 3 1.5-mm lagged screws. Nine pairs underwent combined cyclic cantilever bending and axial compressive loading followed by loading to failure. Nine additional pairs were subjected to cyclic external rotation while under a constant axial compressive load and were subsequently externally rotated to failure under a constant axial compressive load. Paired t tests were used to compare cyclic creep, stiffness, displacement, rotation, and peak load levels.

RESULTS

Average failure torque for all specimens was 7.2 ± 1.7 Nm. In cyclic torsional testing, the group with 2 screws exhibited significantly less rotational creep than the one with 3 screws. A single specimen in the group with 2 screws failed before cyclic bending tests were completed. No other significant differences were found between test groups during torsional or bending tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Both constructs were biomechanically similar except that the construct with 2 screws displayed significantly less loosening during torsional cyclic loading, although the difference was small and may not be clinically meaningful.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because we found no obvious biomechanical advantage to using 3 1.5-mm lagged screws to fix long spiral metacarpal fractures, the time efficiency and decreased implant costs of using 2-2.0 mm lagged screws may be preferred.